Dental Claim
DF v KH (2022)
Provision of Veneers & Bruxism
Dental Claim Out Of Court Settlement £2000
Instructions were received to act on behalf of DF (hereafter referred to as the Claimant) in connection with negligent dental treatment provided by the Defendant whilst he was a patient at his dental practice.
The claim surrounded the provision of upper anterior veneers over pre-existing filings, a failure to consider bruxism beforehand and failing to treatment plan/obtain consent for treatment.
The Claimant had been a patient of the Defendant and attended on the 9 August 2017 to have veneers placed at UR21 and UL1. The veneers, unfortunately, debonded on multiple occasions. The Claimant attended for unsuccessful remedial treatment with UR1 being the incorrect shade.
As a consequence of the veneers being placed at UR21 and UL1, the Claimant required crowns at UR1 and UL1 with the additional risk of the same becoming non vital.
The Claimant took steps to prepare and serve a detailed Letter of Claim on the 24 June 2021.
In respect of Breach of Duty it was alleged that: –
The Defendant provided veneers at UL1 and UR1 over pre-existing fillings which was an
unsuitable treatment;
Failed to properly prepare a treatment plan by failing to explore any bruxism issues prior to placing veneers, Failed to obtain proper consent to treatment, Failed to use the correct cementation technique causing the veneers to debond on multiple occasions, and Caused the Claimant emotional distress by way of embarrassment,
The Letter of Claim included a Part 36 offer of settlement.
A leading MDO confirmed their involvement as insurers for the Defendant and they confirmed that their investigations into Liability had commenced.
The Defendant failed to provide a Letter of Response by the 24 October 2021 in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol. This necessitated numerous chasers to be advanced by the Claimant.
Eventually, on the 22 December 2021, the Defendant provided a Letter of Response. The Letter of Response denied each of the Claimant’s allegations of Negligence. The MDO argued that fillings were removed from UL1 and UR1 before veneers were placed and that it was the Claimant’s grinding habit which was the cause of the issues.
The Defendant’s denial of Liability was not accepted and a detailed challenge letter responding to the Letter of Response was prepared and served on the 25 January 2022. The Defendant rejected the Claimant’s further comments regarding Breach of Duty and refused to enter into settlement discussions. The MDO proceeded to instruct solicitors to deal with the matter on their behalf.
Given the Defendant’s repudiation of the claim the Claimant considered it necessary to obtain formal expert evidence addressing Liability & Causation and Condition & Prognosis. A General Dental Practitioner was instructed in this regard and a detailed Report was provided.
The expert was of the opinion that the Claimant was not a suitable candidate for veneers due to his bruxism habit. Informed consent could not have been obtained if the bruxism was present before the teeth were prepared for veneers. The veneers may have debonded due to failures with the bonding techniques with the recementing of the veneers without removing all the previous cement and preparing the porcelain may have contributed to the debonding.
Following receipt of the experts Report, the Claimant proceeded to prepare a detailed letter to the Defendant advising in respect of the Expert’s Opinion and Breach of Duty.
On 27 June 2022, in response to the Claimant’s further challenge letter, the Defendant advanced a Part 36 offer of £2,000.00.
After careful consideration the Claimant elected to accept the Defendant’s offer.